need some advice
- Thread starter evilboi
- Start date
- Status
If you're just starting out and new to SLRs, my suggestion is to stick to just the 18-55mm kit lens.
If on the other hand, pricing is the same for both kits and you have no choice but to choose between either, then I'd go for the 18-200mm if I were just starting out and in your shoes.
If on the other hand, pricing is the same for both kits and you have no choice but to choose between either, then I'd go for the 18-200mm if I were just starting out and in your shoes.
Pros : 1 lens fit all, lighter, no need to change lens, has VR
Cons : picture quality is not tat good, can't do specialised tasks such as macros, etc.
It comes down to the type of shooting you're interested in. The 18-55mm IMO suits general photography and is a good enough lens when since you're just starting out.
The 18-200mm lens sure is a more versatile lens, but it's also a larger investment and cost up-front. But if you have no choice and have to choose between this and the 18-55/55-200mm combo, then as my advice above, I'd go for the 18-200mm. It's not perfect optics but good enough when you're starting out, and in the event the lens doesn't work for you or you want to get better glass, the resale value to second hand buyers is higher too.
There's also Ken Rockwell's opinion on the lens, though you have to compensate for his usual enthusiasm: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18200.htm
Some people prefer Thom Hogan's reviews though: http://www.bythom.com/18200lens.htm
The 18-200mm lens sure is a more versatile lens, but it's also a larger investment and cost up-front. But if you have no choice and have to choose between this and the 18-55/55-200mm combo, then as my advice above, I'd go for the 18-200mm. It's not perfect optics but good enough when you're starting out, and in the event the lens doesn't work for you or you want to get better glass, the resale value to second hand buyers is higher too.
There's also Ken Rockwell's opinion on the lens, though you have to compensate for his usual enthusiasm: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18200.htm
Some people prefer Thom Hogan's reviews though: http://www.bythom.com/18200lens.htm
if you have to pick the 18-55 / 55-200 combo, make sure you go for the VR version of the 18-55mm, may have to pay a bit more for that.
the current 18-55mm II-ED kit lens for the d40 is without VR.
the current 18-55mm II-ED kit lens for the d40 is without VR.
wats the difference between 18-55mm II-ED kit lens and the one with VR? paisey still very new to SLR and still reading up....
i got a lobang for D40 lens kit at $450... is it worth it? :sweat:
something to read about.
my reply at post #63.
for anything else, there's always goggle available.
http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=371807&page=4&highlight=best+kit+lens
just get the body will do.
is the deal a 2nd hand set ? what's the shutter count ?
my reply at post #63.
for anything else, there's always goggle available.
http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=371807&page=4&highlight=best+kit+lens
just get the body will do.
is the deal a 2nd hand set ? what's the shutter count ?
Last edited:
deal i have is for a 1st hand standard kit.... not sure whether it comes wif the VR lens or the normal one though
I would take the 18-200 mm VR if you got the budget.
After all it covers the focal lengths of both zooms in one flexible package for traveling simple.
I would not be too concern with the IQ comparing the 18-200 against the 18-55 and 55-200. Good enough for most of us unless you want larger aperture for other purposes. All the three lenses mentioned are not macro lenses anyway.
Ryan
After all it covers the focal lengths of both zooms in one flexible package for traveling simple.
I would not be too concern with the IQ comparing the 18-200 against the 18-55 and 55-200. Good enough for most of us unless you want larger aperture for other purposes. All the three lenses mentioned are not macro lenses anyway.
Ryan
i read up about the reverse lens stuff so if i use my 18-55mm lens possible for macro?
is UV filter a good protection for the lens? read up it might block some light to the camera thus lousier pics
Last edited:
There are two "schools of thought" about it. One says "Avoid anything additional between the front element of your lens and the object because every piece of glass will obstruct the light in a certain way." The other one says "It's a good protection. If you chose a good filter it's a piece of quality glass that doesn't do anything do your light." Both schools have their points and it's up to you which one you will follow.
A lens hood can be a protector as well. There are cheaper third party hoods (by Hoya) which you can use on all lenses with the same front diameter. Some lenses already come with a hood.
You will notice the difference between cheap filters and good ones especially in backlight situations or when the sun (or other light sources) are directly in the frame. Cheap filters tend to produce flare and colour cast. Secondly: if you want to use other filters as well (e.g. polarizer) you need to remove the UV filter first. Stacking is not a good idea.
Quality-wise look for the multi-layer coated filters.
polarizer filter is used for taking pictures behind glass/ cancel away the reflection rite? can i jus leave the polarizer filter to act as a protection on my d40? is HOYA the recomanded cheap+good filter?
The image quality of 18-200mm is quite good, and you don't have to change lens. Of course you suffer from some distortion, but even 18-55 and 55-200 also have distortions along the zoom range.
The 18-55 VR lens is coupled with D60 as a kit, but it can also fit on D40, no probs. VR=Vibration Reduction. You can get less motion blur at slow shutter speeds with the 18-55VR compared to the non-VR that was coupled with D40 as standard kit.
You just want protection of your lens, UV filter will do the job. Polariser reduces glare, but not totally. If I'm not wrong, the 'polarising power' is not evenly spread across the entire polariser.
The 18-55 VR lens is coupled with D60 as a kit, but it can also fit on D40, no probs. VR=Vibration Reduction. You can get less motion blur at slow shutter speeds with the 18-55VR compared to the non-VR that was coupled with D40 as standard kit.
You just want protection of your lens, UV filter will do the job. Polariser reduces glare, but not totally. If I'm not wrong, the 'polarising power' is not evenly spread across the entire polariser.
i've already bought the D40 lens kit and decide to use the stock 18-55mm lens first till i learn more on SLR. since UV filter only act as a protection den y not use a Polariser lens?
You wouldn't want a polarizer on your lens all the time in all types of photography.
But then again, if you're OK forgoing the lens protection when you're taking shots without the polarizer, then that'll work too.
But then again, if you're OK forgoing the lens protection when you're taking shots without the polarizer, then that'll work too.
Read here: How To Use A Polarizing Filter.
This should show you why it is a bad idea to use polarizer filters as lens protectors. There is no such thing thing as "one lens fits all" or "one filter fits all". Equipment has its purposes and limits. If you want to have this protection function get a decent UV filter. But once you want to use a polarizer you should remove the UV first. Don't stack filters.
- Status
Similar threads
